Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #46321

    Thank you, Kim Manturuk, for being transparent and bringing this issue to light.
    I always considered double-blind and peer-review research to be the gold standard. It didn’t occur to me to investigate those doing the studies. Double-blind research, unfortunately, can mask both unintended and intended biases. This reminds me of the 1993 NIH inclusion policy that mandates women and minorities be included in NIH-funded research. To think this wasn’t a requirement until 30 years ago highlights how inclusion is pursued and not guaranteed. Furthermore, this is only an NIH requirement and doesn’t apply to all evidence-based research. I wonder who else is being overlooked. The proposal to have a statement excluding discriminatory schools presented a moral dilemma for me. Although I agree with the intent, I don’t want exclusionary practices to gain a foothold. This could easily backfire and exclude more than the intended parties. Perhaps a statement of appropriate conduct, respect, and inclusion would be more impactful.
    As a DNP student, I will one day participate in the peer review process. This is a great reminder to review the gathered data and determine the researcher’s underlying agendas. The proposal to have a separate, unblinded review of the study was intriguing. This could provide more accountability for researchers and find other unidentified biases in their studies.


    This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.

    The article provided valuable insights into the review processes – single-blind, double-blind, and open reviews – that I had never known or thought about. It was an eye-opener to learn how personal bias could affect one’s review, and I am grateful for the opportunity to educate myself on this important topic. In a world where we live among people with diverse cultures, it’s important to acknowledge that everyone has the right to believe what they think is correct. However, it’s equally important to ensure that one’s belief doesn’t harm or interfere with the beliefs and lives of others.

    As a DNP student, I am currently gaining knowledge and skills that will enable me to contribute to the nursing research field in the future. As a reviewer, I would evaluate research studies and provide critical feedback to help improve their quality. The beliefs held by authors and reviewers should not influence the scientific research findings. Instead, the research should be conducted based on the principles of scientific inquiry, and the evidence gathered should be rigorously analyzed and interpreted. This will ensure that the results are unbiased and can be used to inform clinical decision-making and policy development in the nursing field. Therefore, I wonder if Open Review should be the gold standard for scientific research.


    Hello! After reviewing the article, I feel like the author sparks a thoughtful conversation about blind peer review, challenging the notion of its fairness. The practical example of the Pandemic Pedagogy Research Symposium adds a real-world perspective, revealing how blind review unintentionally accepted work from institutions with discriminatory policies (Manturuk, K. 2022). The call to incorporate an unblinded review based on values suggests a more mindful approach to academic evaluation, urging a shift towards conscientious practices. Exploring the intricacies of review processes, including single-blind, double-blind, and open reviews, brought a fresh understanding that I did not consider before. The article emphasizes the delicate balance of respecting diverse beliefs while ensuring they don’t cause harm—an essential consideration in today’s diverse landscape. As a new DNP student, I’m recognizing the importance of contributing to nursing research with impartiality, grounded in rigorous inquiry and objective interpretation. I believe that the idea of Open Review as a potential gold standard piques my interest, pointing towards an exciting direction for further exploration in the dynamic field of scientific research. This dilemma surfaces the paradox: while blind review guards against implicit bias, it simultaneously impedes proactive efforts to confront and dismantle explicit discrimination in academic settings.
    Serafina BSN, RN

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.